Of course. Some of these jobs are obviously perfect for robots: assembly line production, batch calculation, data processing, even checkout cashiers. But there are a few job markets where replacement of humans with robots is not such an obvious move, but does make a lot of sense if you think about it.

Retail Sales Associates

Not even a month ago, an American home improvement chain named Lowe’s employed their first robot at one of their stores in San Jose, California. Its name is OSHbot, stands five-feet tall, speaks both English and Spanish, interacts with customers, and is always available on the floor for help.

“It’s not just robots for robots’ sake, or a marketing gimmick,” insists Kyl Nel, executive director of Lowe’s Innovation Labs.

The key to a robot-to-human interface is that it is embodied, suggests Philip Solis, a robotics expert at ABI Research. “You’re moving towards something you can interact with more – you can ask it information, and it can respond to you.”

OSHbot has constant access to the store’s full inventory and always knows what’s in stock, what isn’t, and where to find everything. It’s also equipped with a 3D scanner that can identify screws, hinges, etc. — a useful feature when customers need more of certain item but don’t know what it’s called.

No human sales associate knows the exact state of a store’s inventory off the top of their head. Not only does OSHbot know, but it can deliver that information at near-instant speeds. This perpetual access to databases has implications for future features as well.

For example, services like Next Glass and Pandora can already make personalized recommendations for users based on their current tastes. As long as the right databases are maintained, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to see robots like OSHbot making recommendations to users on the fly.

At that point, human sales associates would have no advantage over their machine counterparts.

Data Research & Analysis

While we’re on the topic of database access, let’s talk about Watson and Ross.

In 2005, IBM began developing an artificially intelligent computer named Watson that took in and processed over 4 terabytes of encyclopedic knowledge. In 2011, Watson appeared on Jeopardy and won, beating out two legendary former winners.

A group of students at the University of Toronto then took Watson and tuned it for a different field: rather than feeding it a mass of general trivia, they sourced it with legal documents, court cases, and statutes of law. This clone of Watson is named Ross and will be used as a legal researcher for a Toronto law firm within the next few years.

Here’s how Ross’s creators say it works: You ask it a legal question, and it spits out an answer, citing a legal case, providing some relevant readings and a percentage number indicating how confident Ross is he got it right. If a new case that might be relevant to your question comes into the database, Ross knows right away and alerts you on your smartphone, perhaps as you are heading to court.

“When we are short of time, we just say it is Siri for lawyers,” says Ross team software engineer Jimoh Ovbiagele, 21, referring to the Apple iPhone’s talking concierge program. He adds that “Watson is a lot smarter than Siri.”

Synthesis of conclusions from a pool of data has long been an activity only for humans, but Watson and Ross are proving that this may not be the case for much longer.

Bank Tellers

Last year, Bank of America began installing next-generation ATMs that can connect customers with live tellers through a video screen. On top of regular ATM actions, these live tellers can perform most of the operations of a traditional bank teller, such as check deposits.

These are convenient for customers, but bank tellers aren’t too happy about them:

Shalom, 20, argues that the machines threaten teller jobs in favor of cheaper labor at call centers in Delaware or Jacksonville, Fla.

“Part of my job is building strong relationships and being able to recommend quality products,” Shalom told ABCNews.com. “I don’t think you can do that through a video screen when you’re never going to know the customer and the customer will never know you.”

Tara Burke, a spokeswoman for Bank of America, denies that the ATMs with video tellers are going to eradicate the classic teller. “We are not planning to replace tellers. We’re not cutting jobs,” Burke said.

It’s uncertain whether these video ATMs will indeed obsolete the role of a traditional bank teller, but even if they don’t, there’s another threat on the horizon. What if all tellers were replaced by physical robots?

Like the aforementioned OSHbot, these robotic tellers would have instant access to databases and accounts, allowing for faster service and less chances for error. Robots are also trustworthy because they have no innate inclination to steal or deceive (which can’t be said about humans).

And what about the classic scenario of a bank robbery? Robots have no innate fear of death, which means they cannot be coerced by armed thieves into giving up money. In this case, it’s precisely because robots aren’t human that make them better candidates for the job.

But a self-driving car isn’t much to celebrate on its own. What’s interesting is how these cars will impact society on a larger scale. For example, consider what city life would be like if nobody owned a personal car and all vehicles on the road were akin to self-driving taxis.

When a taxi pulls up to the curb the first question is, “Where are you going?” When Google launches a fleet of self-driving cars in your town, if it’s tied to Google Now it won’t have to ask. It’ll know you have to be at work in 30 minutes. It’ll know that on Sunday afternoons you head to the market for groceries. And it’ll know that you’re heading to karaoke for Susan’s birthday on Saturday. It’ll know where to go without you searching your phone for an address.

And like all things Google, it’ll learn. The cars could potentially find patterns among customers that use the service all the time. The cars could congregate near users during peak periods. Suddenly, waiting seven minutes for Uber or Lyft will be ludicrous. The Google Self-Driving Car will be there in half the time because it already knows you’ll want a ride. Not just you, it’ll know when everyone wants a ride. It’ll know where to be at all times. Because every time you use Google anything, it’ll learn and that information could seep into your rides.

Final Thoughts

The field of robotics is still in its infancy. Who knows how the future will look? Many of our assumptions may be flat out wrong, such as the possibility of robots being soft and inflatable instead of being forged of chrome.

Robots are an inevitable reality and humans are insanely adaptable to their circumstances. I don't know what the future holds but we managed to survive various technological revolutions of the past and I'm sure we'll make it through the age of the robot as well.

Ever heard of Mega Man? If robots took over, why, Dr. Wily would have a heyday! Blasphemous. I hear now they've already left their marks on robocalling, now we have Internet bots! Reminds me too much of Dr. Wily, in fact, so much, that we now have spambots! Ahhh!!! Where' s a NetNavi when you need one?

All this talk about robots/AI taking over more and more human jobs and tasks is based on the baseless assumption that robots/AI will become smart enough to replace humans but dumb enough to continue obeying them. Unless Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics become the basis for the programming of ALL robotic brains, there is absolutely no guarantee that robots will continue to serve humans.

What if robots get so advanced that they can replicate and program themselves? What if they get so advanced theat they replace humans at ALL jobs? What if then they decide that humans have no purpose, are superfluous and , in the name of efficiency, eliminate humans altogether?

"In 2011, Watson appeared on Jeopardy and won, beating out two legendary former winners.
Here’s how Ross’s creators say it works: You ask it a legal question, and it spits out an answer"
That does not prove that Watson or Ross is intelligent. It just proves that they can retrieve data at a super-high speed. Can Ross argue an original case?

"Bank of America began installing next-generation ATMs that can connect customers with live tellers through a video screen."
Seems inefficient and redundant since a customer can walk into a branch and interact with a teller face to face without the ATM as an intermediary. Unless, of course, BAC is looking to eliminate physical branches and centralize all function at one location. Which I would not put past them or any other bank.

Asimov's Three Laws only apply if an AI becomes self-aware; robots that are forced by their programming to do only certain things, rather than making judgments on their own, will never be a threat to humans any more than a dishwasher or construction machinery would: they do what they are instructed to do by their programming (or what they automatically do mechanically).
Industrial robots (such as welding machines or assembly line robots) have already caused worker injury and death, but they're not rampaging across the country with AK-47s like the "Terminator" movies, and they're not capable of disobeying human orders or retaliating against their masters.
Assuming that AIs will take up arms against their creators is like assuming that an army of grasshoppers will suddenly rise up and start murdering humans; we're decades, if not centuries, away from creating an actual **self-aware** or **sentient** AI, despite what Steven Hawking or Elon Musk have to say about the matter. Both are talking outside their fields of expertise, and stirring up FUD about something that won't happen in their lifetimes, which means they can't possibly be proven right or wrong while they're alive.

As long as our robots are nothing more than glorified Jacquard looms, the Three Laws of Robotics will not apply. However, as soon as the robots acquire the need for independent decision making capabilities, these laws will have to come into play.

"Both are talking outside their fields of expertise"
If I may ask, what is your field of expertise that you are criticizing the opinions of Hawking and Musk?

Are only those with the expertise in a particular field allowed to have an opinion on the matter? Because if that is true then most of the comments posted after MUO articles nothing but baseless drivel. In fact, the laws of robotics as well as most of Asimov's 500 eclectic books should not have been created because his expertise was only in the field of biochemistry.

"Are only those with the expertise in a particular field allowed to have an opinion on the matter?" No, but only those with expertise in a particular field should imply they have an *expert* opinion on the matter.

Much more pressing question is: what will 'replaced' humans do? As aside everdwindling 'elite' groups of Creators, Servitors and Owners there'll be no 'logical need' for rest of (jobless thus 'non-earning') population to exist in capitalist paradigm.
Similar events were responsible for word 'Luddite'...